Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jaketheyak

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
51
Goko Dominion Online / Re: 2.0 Closed Beta Begins
« on: May 24, 2015, 07:41:56 pm »
Bear in mind that the testers can't say anything, whether it be praising or complaining.

Which makes it one of the strangest closed betas in recent memory.

Ugh, to the public, not to the developers.  Although I also can't say how talkative we've been to them either.

When Hearthstone was in closed beta, people were live-streaming it.  NDAs are so far from the new normal as to be suspicious, except in cases where IP is involved, and all of the IP of Dominion is already out there.  If it's not good enough to let us hear about it, it's better to not announce the existence of a beta test.

Really? Blizzard is the yard-stick?
Man, I got an invitation to Blizzard's most recent closed beta on the basis of my Hearthstone account, which has only a few hours total playing time.
And I got beta keys to give to four friends.
Which is to say that a Blizzard closed beta is about as close to a public beta as you can get.

There are all sorts of reasons for an NDA, beyond protecting IP.
The main one I can think of is that you don't want beta testers complaining about issues with the game that won't make it into the final version, giving potential customers the wrong impression.
Like if they start saying "they've still got the stupid lobby system" we might start to think that MF haven't listened to our feedback on that issue, when in fact a replacement matchmaking system is due to be rolled out tomorrow.

We're all keen to hear how awesome the new version is, which is precisely why the beta testers shouldn't be talking about it until it actually is sufficiently awesome.

52
Looking at the Kingdom cards category page I can see that it includes all the Event cards.
Am I wrong in thinking that Events are not Kingdom cards?

53
Dominion General Discussion / Re: About kingmaking
« on: May 21, 2015, 09:37:59 am »
I just don't have time for people who get annoyed or upset about how other people play.
Unless someone is obviously trying to disrupt the game, in a ruining the fun sense not in a ruining your strategy sense.
You just have to let other players do their thing.

This is fine over a friendly game; anyone who complains about kingmaking outside of a competitive setting is being a sore loser.  (Though discussion of and/or apologies for kingmaking are reasonable.)

In a competitive setting, it's a problem.  Hence my contention (for at least as long as this forum has existed) that Dominion should not be played competitively except with two players.  Jay and Donald disagree, and hey that's cool, I'm happy not to participate in sanctioned tournaments, it's no skin off my nose.

I agree that kingmaking is part of what makes multiplayer Dominion much more high-variance (or luck based) than two-player.
However, I cannot agree that the game being part of a tournament or other "competitive setting" gives you licence to complain about other player's strategic choices.

If anything, a tournament setting involving strangers requires you to remain far more courteous than you might with a group of friends.
The issue of kingmaking might rankle even more when there is a prize at stake, but there is a reason a lot of games have "fair play" points in tourneys.

Man, at the end of a tournament game with strangers, just smile, shake hands and say good game.
Then, if you feel you need to, go bitch to your friends privately about that noob who lost you the title.

54
Dominion General Discussion / Re: About kingmaking
« on: May 20, 2015, 10:44:29 pm »
This could be a matter of semantics then.  The primary goal of a game (other than having fun) is to win.  I consider it king-making when you make a decision that doesn't help with that goal but which influences the outcome of the game.  If you are far enough behind that there's no chance of you winning, then you are forced into a king-making position.

You can define it that way if you like, but then the term is completely pointless.
Any time you mathematically can't reach first place, you become a kingmaker.
Okay, fair enough, but it's just not worth even discussing as a concept.

Quote
It sounds like you guys only consider it king-making when you are specifically acting with the intent of deciding the winner, not when it's just an inadvertent side-effect.  And that's fair; that narrower definition is probably more useful.

I think I define it that way because the term kingmaker is usually used as an accusation.
Basically, it's one of many catch-cries of the sore loser.
"He only won because you let him. I should have won."

Ugh.
Just don't.

Quote
Here's a better question then (and is actually more what I intended in the first place).

3 player game of Dominion.  One Duchy and one Province remain.  Alice has 3 points more than you and Bob has 7 points more than you.  Your deck is extremely reliable, Alice's only slightly less so, but Bob is stalled out.  Your choices:

1. Buy Province.  Bob wins but you come in second.
2. Buy Duchy.  In this case, Alice probably buys the last Province and wins and you come in third.  But if Alice is unable to buy the last Province (unlikely but possible), you will probably be first.

Which is the better option?

That's an interesting conundrum and it comes down to two factors:

1. How risk averse you are.
2. Your philosophy about how important it is to come first.

For many people, a guaranteed second is a better option than a maybe-first.
For others, the idea of not taking a chance on a win is completely abhorrent.

I personally would prefer to take a chance on first place.


55
Dominion General Discussion / Re: About kingmaking
« on: May 20, 2015, 09:43:44 pm »
I just don't have time for people who get annoyed or upset about how other people play.
Unless someone is obviously trying to disrupt the game, in a ruining the fun sense not in a ruining your strategy sense.
You just have to let other players do their thing.

56
Dominion General Discussion / Re: About kingmaking
« on: May 20, 2015, 09:19:58 pm »
For most games where there's a natural ranking, I usually say players should play as if first place is infinitely better than second place, second place is infinitely better than third place, etc.  So you always do whatever maximizes your chances of winning, but if you're 100% sure you can't win, then do whatever maximizes your chances of getting second place, etc.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at it and can contribute to false accusations of kingmaking.
Because in any game with victory points you are perfectly justified in taking any action that increases your final victory point total regardless of whether it improves your final standing.

So, for example, in a three-player Dominion game if a player is in third-place and is 7 points behind the second-place player, I think it is still unfair to call it kingmaking if they buy the final Province.
They know that in all likelihood one of the other two players is about to end the game, so they can either buy a Duchy and come last by 4+ points or buy the last Province and come last by only 1 point.
To me it is obvious that one of those choices is better for the third-placed player and the fact that it prevents the second-placed player from winning is irrelevant.

What if the choice was between maximizing highest potential score and maximizing highest potential rank?  Example:

3 player game of Dominion.  One Duchy and  one Province remain.  Alice has 7 points more than you, Bob has 5 points more than Alice (12 more than you).  You know that Alice can probably afford to buy a Province whereas Bob is stalled out.  You can afford a Province now, and your deck is strong enough that you'll probably be able to afford it next turn as well.  Your two main options:

1. Buy Province.  You maximize your score but you come in third.  Bob wins.
2. Buy Duchy.  If Alice can buy the last Province now, she will win.  But in the off-chance that she can't, you will probably secure second place.

Different people will have different opinions of which of these is king-making.

But my point is that neither is kingmaking.
I think option 2 is better, but option 1 is a perfectly valid choice.

And that's what annoys me about people who throw around accusations of kingmaking.
Basically it usually boils down to "you played poorly and that helped the other person win".
And getting annoyed at someone for playing poorly is super obnoxious.

57
Dominion General Discussion / Re: About kingmaking
« on: May 20, 2015, 08:49:12 pm »
For most games where there's a natural ranking, I usually say players should play as if first place is infinitely better than second place, second place is infinitely better than third place, etc.  So you always do whatever maximizes your chances of winning, but if you're 100% sure you can't win, then do whatever maximizes your chances of getting second place, etc.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at it and can contribute to false accusations of kingmaking.
Because in any game with victory points you are perfectly justified in taking any action that increases your final victory point total regardless of whether it improves your final standing.

So, for example, in a three-player Dominion game if a player is in third-place and is 7 points behind the second-place player, I think it is still unfair to call it kingmaking if they buy the final Province.
They know that in all likelihood one of the other two players is about to end the game, so they can either buy a Duchy and come last by 4+ points or buy the last Province and come last by only 1 point.
To me it is obvious that one of those choices is better for the third-placed player and the fact that it prevents the second-placed player from winning is irrelevant.

58
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: May 20, 2015, 07:22:30 pm »
You've said before that all mechanics introduced in Adventures would be up for grabs for future expansions - how exactly would you deal with new Reserves requiring the Tavern mat without reprinting the mat?
If there were new Reserve cards there would need to be a new Tavern mat. Probably a different image so people from the new cards could be sitting there.
And now is when I realize that the people sitting at the Tavern are on the Reserve Cards. (Ratcatcher, Guide, and Wine Merchant; right?)

It's no coincidence that all three of those cards are illustrated by the same artist.

59
Dominion General Discussion / Re: At what point should you resign?
« on: May 19, 2015, 02:46:29 am »
What about resigning in a multiplayer game?
Wouldn't that always be impolite

Yes.

One player resigning in a multiplayer game is annoying because it throws the balance out for the remaining players.
But if one player has an unassailable lead, I think it's fine for the remaining players to agree to resign as a group.

Of course, the current online implementation does not handle this situation at all well, so it just always sucks.
But who is playing multiplayer online anyway?

60
Dominion General Discussion / Re: At what point should you resign?
« on: May 19, 2015, 12:49:37 am »
I think something got a little lost in translation there, because to me saying "not particularly polite" is the same as saying "impolite".
If you meant that it has nothing to do with politeness, then I think we are largely in agreement.

61
Dominion General Discussion / Re: At what point should you resign?
« on: May 18, 2015, 11:51:50 pm »
Imagine there's a trebuchet-building contest.  It's down to you and one other contestant, and right before you're actually tested on how far your trebuchets can shoot and how much damage they can do, your opponent just says "Ah, fuck it, yours is better than mine, just take the damn prize."  You've won, but it's rather disappointing.  Even if your winning is a foregone conclusion, you still want to shoot the trebuchet.

This is the perfect analogy, because it works the other way too.
Sometimes I'm not resigning because I'm enjoying watching you shoot your trebuchet, even though I've barely managed to cobble together a rubber-band catapult.

62
Dominion General Discussion / Re: At what point should you resign?
« on: May 18, 2015, 11:46:50 pm »
On the flip side, if your opponent is about to finish the game with a win or is very likely to on their next turn, I would consider it polite to allow them to do so rather than immediately resign.

I consider it polite to immediately resign. Basically, if you don't, it's because you're hoping that your opponent somehow doesn't see the forced win (which is fine, but not particularly polite), or it's because you're not paying enough attention yourself to see that the opponent has the forced win (which is fine, but not particularly polite), or it's because you're wasting everyone's time (which is rude).

…Or because you understand that some people think it's fun to actually get to run past the finish line to make the win.

That's the thing, I don't understand why anyone would think it's fun to click on buttons with no purpose.

I think ever saying that it's rude to not resign is completely uncool.
Different people want different things.
Just because you want to hurry up and get on to the next game, doesn't mean your opponent does.

Isn't the purpose to have fun?
Is it only fun when you're winning?

Also, saying that it's impolite not to see when the game is immediately winnable is elitist boasting.
If your opponent isn't that good at tracking the game state, they are deliberately wasting your time?
Wow.

63
Dominion General Discussion / Re: At what point should you resign?
« on: May 18, 2015, 11:15:15 pm »
You never have any obligation to resign, even when it is mathematically impossible for you to win the match. If the would be winner isn't willing to play out the whole match, they shouldn't win. That simple.

That said, I tend to resign once it is literally impossible for me to win the match, unless the game is just a few turns from ending anyway.

Yes, it's a game.
It should be fun whether you are winning or not.

The time to resign is the point at which either you're no longer having fun or you think it would be more fun to play a new game.
For many people this coincides neatly with the point at which they think they can no longer win, but that's not the case for everybody.

Don't let anybody pressure you into resigning and don't ever be afraid to blacklist poor sports.

64
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: May 17, 2015, 09:52:34 pm »
What Thread Is This?
Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Point out that a card is really bad in the really bad card ideas thread.

65
Other Games / Re: Evaluating common games mathematically
« on: May 14, 2015, 07:15:55 pm »
Better advice for the coin toss than not letting the same person choose and toss would be to not let the person tossing catch the coin in mid-air.
Also, have a disinterested third-party be the one to toss the coin.

England is generally considered more defensible than France in Diplomacy because even though there is one extra avenue to attack the English supply centres, all avenues of attack are by sea.
Regardless, you don't win Diplomacy by sitting back and defending your home supply centres.

If you are invited to enter a rock-paper-scissors tournament, politely decline.

Numberphile is awesome.

66
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: May 14, 2015, 12:48:29 am »
I feel like these have probably been done before, but...

Band of Conformists - Action $5

Play this as if it were any Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose.
This is that card until the end of the game.


Army of Misfits - Action $9

Play this as if it were any Action card that exists in Dominion that you choose.
This is that card until it leaves play.

67
Right. Down to 4 is best, duh! You got an extra card, and didn't suffer at all from the attack. Why did your opponent go for these cards with HT on the board?

So, you wouldn't buy Minion or Urchin because HT is on the board?  :o

Quote
Let's get constructive. Do you think HT is generally worth buying against, say, Witch?

Yes, absolutely.
It doesn't defend against the attack, of course, but it means that getting attacked improves your current hand.
And, as others have pointed out, the junk gives HT something to discard.

68
* Which is more useful - the on-play effect, or the reaction?

Well, if you use the reaction you also get to use the on-play effect, so... both?

But, really, it depends on the attack.
The reaction is a clear winner against discard attacks and more like a consolation against other attacks.

Quote
* Under what instances would you not want a Horse Traders?

The requirement to discard two cards when you play it means that it's not very good in thinned-down engines.
Much better in a rush or a slog.

Quote
* How does it compare to Wine Merchant?

I guess Wine Merchant is better at hitting high totals?
Haven't had a chance to see how it plays yet.
Horse Traders has much better art.

Quote
* Why are these Traders at a Dutch angle?

Ooh, I know this one.
It creates a sense of unease and tension, helping to portray these characters in a sinister light.

69
Rules Questions / Re: Warrior + Tunnel
« on: May 12, 2015, 10:07:36 pm »
I was really asking why it was unsatisfying, not why it was weird.

I agree that the lose track rule is complicated and weird for casual players and it's unfortunate that the rule does not appear in some of the rulebooks in which it is needed.
The rule has existed at least as early as Intrigue with Throne Room-Mining Village, although at the time the rulebook just dealt with that one specific interaction instead of explaining the general rule.

The way I see it, casual players have the same options they have with any weird rules issue that comes up playing any game: either they muddle through with whatever interpretation the group can agree on, or they can search online for a ruling. Dominion players have a unique advantage in that the game designer makes himself so readily accessible to rule on these matters, so the chances are that if a casual player does get stuck on a rules question they can probably find the answer online pretty quickly.

70
Rules Questions / Re: Warrior + Tunnel
« on: May 12, 2015, 06:49:03 pm »
Why? Tunnel is specifically designed to be a passive defence against certain types of attacks.
The fact that it is doubly effective against Warrior is awesome.

71
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card
« on: May 12, 2015, 06:46:41 pm »


I dare you to edge case this.

Revealing Trader still does nothing, but you've obviously emptied the Silver pile if you're only gaining six of them.

72
Dominion FAQ / Re: How many sleeves do I need?
« on: May 11, 2015, 09:27:01 am »
I think I will sleeve my Events and institute a no open containers policy!

73
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: May 11, 2015, 08:27:56 am »
An event by that name already exists. :)

So, you could say it's a really bad idea to call it that?

74
Dominion FAQ / Re: How many sleeves do I need?
« on: May 11, 2015, 08:24:42 am »
I'm going to sleeve mine, but the original question made it clear that they were trying to minimise sleeving and Events seem like an obvious choice to leave unsleeved. But, yeah, for the sake of 20 sleeves it's probably not worth it.

As for spilling drinks, I'm not convinced that sleeves would help protect against that. I feel that if anything sleeves would trap moisture against the card.

75
Dominion FAQ / Re: How many sleeves do I need?
« on: May 11, 2015, 02:19:47 am »
I think sleeving events is wise

Why?
They aren't subject to in-play wear like other cards.
If you use them according to the letter of the rulebook, they only ever get shuffled when you use your randomiser deck then left on the table for the duration of the game.
For many of us they won't even see that much action because randomiser apps are much easier to use than the giant randomiser deck.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 18 queries.